[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: nobase.test

From: Peter O'Gorman
Subject: Re: nobase.test
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:08:53 +0900

On Sep 6, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

[ ]

Hello Patrick,

* Patrick Welche wrote on Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:30:26PM CEST:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 09:33:20AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I say we drop the test and require that install-sh be executable.
After all, this is so much easier to do.

OK to apply?

Sounds good (I didn't understand the advantage of non-executable install-sh)

I installed that, in the hope that neither Alexandre nor Peter mind. ;-)

On a regular basis, I patch packages to use the autotools build system that did not originally do so. Our build system unpacks the original tarball and applies patches with patch. This means that scripts get created without execute bits, so the build fails. The idea of the test that Alexandre installed was to ensure that automake would be able to continue to run without executable bits being set, not so that the test could be removed when someone broke automake so that it no longer works without being executable.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]